Sutherland v. Sutherland, 2008 WL 3021024 (Aug. 5, 2008).
This is an example of the Chancery Court’s practical side which allows it to cut to the chase and avoid unnecessary procedural entanglements. In this case, despite a Motion to Dismiss that was pending, and in light of the multiple proceedings that ensued after the motion was filed, in order to promote efficiency, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. Apparently a Brief was filed by the plaintiff in reply to the Motion to Dismiss and Chancery Court Rule 15(aaa) gives one a binary choice in light of a Motion to Dismiss: either amend the complaint or respond to the Motion to Dismiss. However, the rule also gives the Court flexibility to amend anyway when (as here) dismissal "would not be just under the circumstances".
In the meantime, the court cited to several cases that address the procedural impact on a pending complaint based on actions taken by a special litigation committee, especially in terms of arguments about demand excusal under Chancery Court Rule 23.1.
There have been no less than five (5) prior decisions of substance that I previously summarized in this case, which provide the extensive background details regarding this intra-family, internecine warfare, and which are available here.